← All Phrases

“delay in filing appeal”

AppealsSection 249Section 2491,894 judgments

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT UPARWAH,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Uparwah, Rajnandgaon-491 445 (C.G.) Pan: Aafas6023D

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with specific direction to the assessee to demonstrate sufficient cause for such delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and if the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is satisfied

AMBEY ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5505/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarambey Enterprises Vs. Assessing Officer 30/54 A 1St Floor Gali Ward 58(1) No.8, Vishwas Nagar Delhi Shahdara, Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdfa 0570D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

barred by limitation as there was delay of 282 days in filing the appeal. Assessee did not file any application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. Ld. AO had passed assessment order dated 13.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act as assessee did not comply with notices. In the grounds

SHABD PRATAP SATSANG,SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

enclosed. In such circumstance appeal U/s 246A could not be filed in time in the interest & for the cause of justice, the delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal be admitted lest charity may suffer.” 4. The limitation period for filing appeal before

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250

nVijay Kothari\nITA No.267/Ind/2024\nΑ.Υ.:2015-16\n(Image of Notary Stamp and Affidavit Text)\nAFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nBefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at INDORE\nIn the matter of Shri Vijay Kothari (ACVPK1947R)\n Assessment Year

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

period. Hence, in my considered opinion, appellant was not prevented by the good and sufficient cause in delayed filing of appeal and therefore delay in filing appeal is not condoned and without condoning the delay the appeal cannot be admitted. Once the delay in filing condonation is rejected, deciding

TULU KOOTA AIROLI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-EXMP WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5791/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(2)

days in filing the appeal, without considering the merits of the case.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing appeals should be interpreted liberally with a justice-oriented approach. The assessee's reasons for the delay, including medical difficulties of a trustee

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before ... circumstances of the appeal in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for. A.Y.2014-15 are exactly similar as appearing in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 both on issue of delay in filing appeal before this Bench and also with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of assessee

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before ... circumstances of the appeal in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for. A.Y.2014-15 are exactly similar as appearing in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 both on issue of delay in filing appeal before this Bench and also with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of assessee

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before ... circumstances of the appeal in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for. A.Y.2014-15 are exactly similar as appearing in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 both on issue of delay in filing appeal before this Bench and also with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of assessee

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before ... circumstances of the appeal in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for. A.Y.2014-15 are exactly similar as appearing in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 both on issue of delay in filing appeal before this Bench and also with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of assessee

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 419/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ACIT/DCIT Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 9. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the facts ... that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 1028 days. We note that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was stated to be for the reasons that the accountant of the assessee, who was entrusted with

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 418/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ACIT/DCIT Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 9. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the facts ... that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 1028 days. We note that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was stated to be for the reasons that the accountant of the assessee, who was entrusted with

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 250

that the appellants case does not fall within the said time period. The appellant has not given any sufficient reason to justify the delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point

IMRANKHAN ISMAIL PATHAN,DHULE vs. ITO WARD 1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1091/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1091/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.11, Ward-1, Dhule Mohammadi Nagar, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule – 424 002 Maharashtra Pan : Anepp8171C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

delay purpose) 09/02/2024 Last date for filing appeal 09/04/2024 Proposed Date of filing of appeal 30/04/2025 4 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan No. of days delay in filing appeal (from 10/04/2024 to 30/04/2025) 387 days 14. I state that, the reason of delay was that I was completely unaware of the conclusion

DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

case, the order of learned CITA is erroneous and bad in law.\n2. The learned CIT A ought to have condoned the delay in filing appeal before him and considered the appeal on merits.\n3. The learned CIT A failed to appreciate that the impugned asst order has been done

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANTILAL CHHATRALIA,GUJARAT vs. ASSESING OFICER, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

sufficient\ncause\" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice,\nwe take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 763 days.\nWe observed that the appellant is a resident individual with the main source of\nincome from salary. For the Assessment

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 34/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115bSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 271ASection 271aSection 68

sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 363 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.08.2017 declaring therein

THE BOMBAY HINDU BURNING AND BURIAL GROUNDS COMMITTEE,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXE WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 9324/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

case, we find that assessee was bonafidely pursuing alternative remedy in filing application under section 154. Thus, there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is a matter of fact that from 15/03/2020, there was a worldwide severe covid-19 pandemic ... upto 25/02/2022 4 The Bombay Hindu Burning and Burial Grounds Committee and further 90 days grace period was also allowed. Thus, delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 5. On merit, we find that case of assessee was not considered on merit, therefore, accepting the plea

NARENDRA PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2583/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2583/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Narendra Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, 3A, Divine Heritage Society, Vs. Cgo Complex, Kamla Nehru Gyan Khand Ii, Nagar Indirapuram,Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Hapur Road,Ghaziabad, 201010. Uttar Pradesh 201005. Pan No.Avqpp2801H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 249(3)Section 250

present Counsel CA Neelesh Kumar Jain and we have consulted then to filed the 1 Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Further, it is humbly submittal that the delay in submitting appeal is of 333 days may kindly be condoned since delay only

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

ITA 549/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

assessee, observing as follows: “2.13 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the judicial decisions on the matter of delay in filing appeals, this appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no sufficient cause has been

Showing 1–20 of 1,894 · Page 1 of 95

...